Garrett wrote:Where to start on this. I say leave it open to all use and stop designating land as wilderness here and in other places. Wilderness designation is outdated and just an easy way for the governing agencies to avoid appropriately managing public lands. Why not address individual issues as they present themselves and actually manage public lands as individual user groups present themselves.

well said

I'm surprised the mtn bike community hasn't gotten together 1000 or so riders in protest and ridden a "wilderness" trail...then again the burning issue isn't necessarily with current wilderness, but rather the wilderness nuts taking more and more trails away.

mattpayne11 wrote:Who'd have thought that a Wilderness Designation Act would get so much negative commentary on a forum dedicated to climbing mountains in those areas.

I think there might be a silent majority that doesn't lean strongly in one direction or another, and feel they wouldn't add much to the conversation.

For example, I am in favor of adding wilderness protection to areas that have wilderness characteristics, are not currently used by user groups who object to the protections (MTBs and ORVs, etc), and where geography, geology, access, or use make resource exploitation prohibitive or undesirable. Areas should be excluded from wilderness protection when there is a legitimate reason. But I think the more wild we can keep wild the better.

If that convinced everyone, then we can all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together.

That said, I think the prohibition against human-powered transport should be changed. A mountain bike is a tool you take with you when you leave, just like a stove or tent. For most trails, they cause less erosion than currently allowed modes of transportation. As in other, non-wilderness areas, they could be permitted or prohibited on specific trails, and it should be up the local forest service to make those determinations, rather than a blanket prohibition based on a weak interpretation of an outdated law. And I don't even mountain bike.

mattpayne11 wrote:Who'd have thought that a Wilderness Designation Act would get so much negative commentary on a forum dedicated to climbing mountains in those areas.

I think there might be a silent majority that doesn't lean strongly in one direction or another, and feel they wouldn't add much to the conversation.

For example, I am in favor of adding wilderness protection to areas that have wilderness characteristics, are not currently used by user groups who object to the protections (MTBs and ORVs, etc), and where geography, geology, access, or use make resource exploitation prohibitive or undesirable. Areas should be excluded from wilderness protection when there is a legitimate reason. But I think the more wild we can keep wild the better.

If that convinced everyone, then we can all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" together.

That said, I think the prohibition against human-powered transport should be changed. A mountain bike is a tool you take with you when you leave, just like a stove or tent. For most trails, they cause less erosion than currently allowed modes of transportation. As in other, non-wilderness areas, they could be permitted or prohibited on specific trails, and it should be up the local forest service to make those determinations, rather than a blanket prohibition based on a weak interpretation of an outdated law. And I don't even mountain bike.

I honestly could not have said it better myself. I feel 100% the same.